Jump to content

Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Pakistan

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Deletion Sorting
Project

This is a collection of discussions on the deletion of articles related to Pakistan. It is one of many deletion lists coordinated by WikiProject Deletion sorting. Anyone can help maintain the list on this page.

Adding a new AfD discussion
Adding an AfD to this page does not add it to the main page at WP:AFD. Similarly, removing an AfD from this page does not remove it from the main page at WP:AFD. If you want to nominate an article for deletion, go through the process on that page before adding it to this page. To add a discussion to this page, follow these steps:
  1. Edit this page and add {{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/PageName}} to the top of the list. Replace "PageName" with the relevant article name, i.e. the one on the existing AFD discussion. Also, indicate the title of the article in the edit summary as it is particularly helpful to add a link to the article in the edit summary. When you save the page, the discussion will automatically appear.
  2. You should also tag the AfD by adding {{subst:delsort|Pakistan|~~~~}} to it, which will inform editors that it has been listed here. You may place this tag above or below the nomination statement or at the end of the discussion thread.
There are a few scripts and tools that can make this easier.
Removing a closed AfD discussion
Closed AfD discussions are automatically removed by a bot.
Other types of discussions
You can also add and remove other discussions (prod, CfD, TfD etc.) related to Pakistan. For the other XfD's, the process is the same as AfD (except {{Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/PageName}} is used for MFD and {{transclude xfd}} for the rest). For PRODs, adding a link with {{prodded}} will suffice.
Further information
For further information see Wikipedia's deletion policy and WP:AfD for general information about Articles for Deletion, including a list of article deletions sorted by day of nomination.

This list is also part of the larger list of deletion debates related to Asia.

Archived discussions (starting from September 2007) may be found at:
Purge page cache watch

Pakistan

[edit]

Gupta–Kidarite conflict

[edit]
Gupta–Kidarite conflict (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Lacks notability as a standalone topic; minimal sourcing, limited content, and better covered within broader articles like Gupta Empire or Kidarites. Duplicative and does not meet WP:N. BharatGanguly (talk) 06:46, 23 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Babusar bus accident

[edit]
Babusar bus accident (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Causing deaths and being reported in the news do not confer notability, and high-casualty bus crashes are common. Fails WP:EVENT. Unable to find sustained significant coverage. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 🛸 03:55, 23 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Sajjad Ibraheem

[edit]
Sajjad Ibraheem (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

No evidence of WP:SIGCOV for this young cricketer. More coverage would be needed to meet WP:SPORTBASIC. PROD was contested by linking a deprecated essay. JTtheOG (talk) 20:44, 22 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep – The subject meets the inclusion criteria as defined in Wikipedia:WikiProject Cricket/Notability#Individuals, which states that any cricketer who has played in a single officially recognized first-class, List A, or T20 match is presumed notable. Sajjad Ibraheem made his first-class debut for Peshawar in the 2024–25 Quaid-e-Azam Trophy on 5 November 2024, in a match against Rawalpindi. This competition is recognized as first-class by the Pakistan Cricket Board (PCB), which is the governing body of cricket in Pakistan. Therefore, the article satisfies the notability requirement under subject-specific guidelines, regardless of broader media coverage. ESPNcricinfo profile. Behappyyar (talk) 20:53, 22 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    According to the guideline you linked, that page is currently inactive and is retained for historical reference. Sports figures need at the very least one independent source with significant coverage (WP:SIGCOV). JTtheOG (talk) 21:08, 22 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you for the reply. While Wikipedia:WikiProject Cricket/Notability is marked as inactive, the notability principle that first-class cricketers are presumed notable is still active policy via WP:NCRICKET, and has been consistently upheld at AfD. As per WP:NCRICKET: "Playing in a first-class match is usually sufficient for notability." This is supported by numerous prior AfD closures. This satisfies WP:NCRICKET and aligns with community consensus for cricketer notability. WP:GNG is not required when reliable subject-specific notability exists and has been broadly applied in practice. Behappyyar (talk) 21:15, 22 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Are these AfDs from the previous three years? Participation-based guidelines have been deprecated since 2022. JTtheOG (talk) 21:27, 22 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Just to clarify: WP:NCRICKET notes that significant coverage should not be assumed for all domestic players, but it also states that playing in an officially recognized first-class match is usually sufficient for notability. This reflects established AfD precedent. Since Sajjad Ibraheem debuted in a PCB-sanctioned first-class match, the subject meets this standard, regardless of media coverage.
  • This will rest on whether sufficient sources can be found to meet the WP:GNG – something along the lines of WP:BASIC level. I don't read Urdu so can't determine if the source in that language would significantly help reach that sort of bar. Simply meeting NCRIC has not been considered sufficient for an article to be kept for years. In this case there appears to not be a suitable list to redirect the article to, so I would suggest sending the article to draft initially unless suitable sourcing can be found Blue Square Thing (talk) 08:39, 24 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Ali Alam Qamar

[edit]
Ali Alam Qamar (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:GNG. Sources are interview, paid for articles and primary sources. Mekomo (talk) 15:07, 22 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Sajjad Ghani

[edit]
Sajjad Ghani (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:GNG. Unremarkable military officer. TheLongTone (talk) 13:31, 22 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - three star general with country's second highest award. Passes WP:ANYBIO 𝗭𝗲𝗽𝗵𝘆𝗿 (ᴛᴀʟᴋ) 14:52, 22 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep – Lt Gen (retd) Sajjad Ghani held the rank of Lieutenant General , the second-highest active rank in the Pakistan Army. Per WP:MILMOS#Notability, general officers of this rank are presumed notable, particularly when they hold high-level commands.
Ghani served as:
  • Commander V Corps (one of Pakistan’s key operational corps), [1]
  • Quartermaster General at GHQ, [2]
  • Commander of an infantry division during operations in Swat,
  • Chairman of WAPDA, a major civilian post after retirement.[3]
  • Vice Chief of General Staff at GHQ [4]

Behappyyar (talk) 14:30, 22 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Nur Shah railway station

[edit]
Nur Shah railway station (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

No reliable source covers the station, does not meet WP:GNG Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 18:38, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You were the same person who added this "fan club" source, weren't you? Why are you adding such sources? - PunjabiEditor69 (talk) 19:58, 22 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@SheriffIsInTown - PunjabiEditor69 (talk) 19:58, 22 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Your question is beyond the scope of this discussion. That source was added in an effort to provide some sourcing to a completely unsourced article so it could be removed from the unsourced list. Its presence does not confer notability. These articles just add to the management overhead for editors. Thank you for the reminder — I will be nominating other such articles for deletion as well. I hope I can count on your support, since you were the one who raised this point. Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 20:46, 22 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
We should redirect pages of small stations that have no reliable sources. - PunjabiEditor69 (talk) 08:23, 23 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Umair (music producer)

[edit]
Umair (music producer) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:GNG and WP:NMUSICIAN. At first glance there appears to be significant coverage but looking closer you will see that most are not bylined, are from unreliable sources, or just routine coverage or mentions. CNMall41 (talk) 17:39, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep – Umair meets WP:GNG and WP:NMUSIC. His 2024 album Rockstar Without a Guitar peaked at #8 on Spotify Pakistan and was featured in Genius Community’s 25 Best Albums of 2024 (ThePrint). His single “Asli Hai” topped YouTube Pakistan charts (Music Metrics Vault). Covered by reliable sources like Samaa TV, ThePrint, Wordplay Magazine, and Itz Hip Hop. Producer for notable duo Young Stunners. Meets NMUSIC via charting work, media coverage, and national significance.

— Behappyyar (talk) 15:41, 22 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

NMUSICIAN would not be met based on charting. Spotify and YouTube are not acceptable under WP:CHART. Also, being a producer for someone notable does not come with inherent notability. Can you address the non-bylined references? Do you feel these are reliable and if so how? For WP:GNG, you are also cited press releases above which can never be used for notability. --CNMall41 (talk) 21:46, 22 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@CNMall41 While it’s true that WP:CHART places limits on YouTube/Spotify data for standalone notability, those indicators support broader cultural relevance under WP:NMUSIC#1 and WP:GNG. Chart placements help demonstrate impact in the absence of traditional charts in South Asia, where mainstream media often lags behind independent or digital-first musicians.
Regarding sources:
  • Samaa TV and ThePrint are independent, professional outlets with editorial oversight and journalistic standards. These are not self-published or fan-driven and are widely accepted as RS in other music-related AfDs.
  • The Itz Hip Hop review is bylined and analytical, not promotional; it contains critical assessment of Umair’s production and album structure.
  • The Wordplay Magazine article, while regional, is independent and contains critical evaluation — see similar RS used in AfDs for artists in UK/India-Pak context.
I accept that the ANI press release cannot count toward WP:GNG, but it was cited for factual support of chart placements, not to satisfy notability directly.
Notability isn’t only about headlining credits. Umair is the primary producer behind Rebirth and Open Letter, two of the most discussed hip-hop albums in Pakistan — both critically reviewed in RS and recognized in independent retrospectives. His influence is creative and structural, meeting WP:NMUSIC#2 (“significant contribution to the work of others that is covered in reliable sources”).
On balance, the article meets WP:GNG through multiple independent sources with critical commentary, and WP:NMUSIC through documented production of notable albums and influence on Pakistan’s hip-hop scene.

— Behappyyar (talk) 06:45, 23 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Playing a major role in major works proves notability. Could you give more info on the part he played and on the notability of those albums? — Itzcuauhtli11 (talk) 14:03, 23 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Not to forget: Talha Anjum's most famous song Kaun Talha? in which he diss an Indian rapper Naezy was produced by Umair. [1] Behappyyar (talk) 15:15, 23 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@(Itzcuauhtli11) He served as the lead producer and co-composer on both Rebirth (2017) and Open Letter (2023), two landmark Urdu hip-hop albums in Pakistan.
On Rebirth, Umair produced all 15 tracks for Young Stunners, a duo considered foundational to Pakistani rap. The album is credited with shaping the Urdu hip-hop scene and received wide media attention from outlets like SAMAA TV.[2]
For Open Letter, he was again the key producer, collaborating with Talha Anjum and international names such as KRSNA. The album was reviewed independently and discussed critically within South Asian music forums.[3][4]
These albums are not just popular but culturally significant, marking key points in the evolution of Pakistani hip-hop. Umair’s complete production involvement and critical coverage of these albums demonstrate a major creative role in notable works, satisfying WP:NMUSIC#2 and strengthening his case under WP:GNG. [5]

References

  1. ^ "Indian rapper asks 'Talha Kaun?', Talha Anjum responds with a brutal diss track". Images.Dawn.com. Dawn Media Group. 21 May 2025. Retrieved 23 May 2025.
  2. ^ "Young Stunners' new Album Rebirth is a must listen". Samaa TV.
  3. ^ "Open Letter - Talha Anjum [Album Review]".
  4. ^ "Open Letter Talha Anjum's album blend of hip-hop and Urdu poetry".
  5. ^ "Umair and Jokhay The man behind the rise of Talha Anjum amd Talha Younas".
There is a huge WP:WALLOFTEXT so I will only be addressing some of the main points. I wouldn't consider Young Stunners even notable despite having a Wikipedia page (that one needs to go to AfD as well). A single collaboration with a rapper is not something that gains inherent notability. Everything else is more of an WP:ILIKEIT argument. As far as the "landmark" albums you speak of, I would guess they would have enough coverage to warrant a Wikipedia page since they are landmark, yet I do not see it. Fact is, the coverage has some mentions, routine announcements, and unreliable sources (even a publication that is reliable like Dawn can have specific articles considered unreliable - see WP:NEWSORGINDIA). The rest of what you cited is not reliable (two blogs and Reddit?). If this artist was truly worthy of notice (a requirement of notability), there would be more than blog posts and promotional churnalism. --CNMall41 (talk) 17:16, 23 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
CNMall41 This isn’t WP:ILIKEIT—his notability stems from his influence on multiple notable works. While some early coverage may be light or promotional, there is independent, reliable coverage (e.g., SAMAA TV, The Express Tribune, and Dawn articles/interviews) highlighting Umair’s production role. [5]. Behappyyar (talk) 18:10, 23 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. The comment proves what I have been saying. You cite this which is a routine announcement and not-bylined. It is not reliable for the purpose of establishing notability. It is the same concept as WP:NEWSORGINDIA. Finally, please do not cite interviews anymore. They are not independent and cannot be used to establish notability. --CNMall41 (talk) 18:15, 23 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The link i have shared Umair slides into Genius Top Albums of the Year is not a routine announcement. It highlights Umair’s recognition by Genius alongside global artists like Beyoncé. This editorial coverage by a reliable source (The Express Tribune) goes beyond routine mentions and supports notability per WP:GNG. Behappyyar (talk) 19:12, 23 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Already stated numerous times. It is NOT BYLINED and falls under similar concerns as WP:NEWSORGINDIA. Articles published under "news desk" or "webdesk" have consistently found to be unreliable for notability purposes as they are promotional churnalism, not something in-depth written by a journalist. Please see WP:CIR. --CNMall41 (talk) 19:48, 23 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Baloch National Movement

[edit]
Baloch National Movement (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:GNG, mostly primary/affiliated sources, no significant coverage in WP:RS. Doesn't meet notability per WP:ORG or WP:NPOV. - PunjabiEditor69 (talk) 15:05, 17 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Family tree of the Greco-Bactrian and Indo-Greek kings

[edit]
Family tree of the Greco-Bactrian and Indo-Greek kings (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Opening introduction explicitly admits to "This family tree (and the trees below it) is based on a combination of Tarn's and Narain's genealogies of the Greco-Bactrian kings, which are not necessarily fully correct, as with all ancient family trees." The combination of these two trees is the entire basis of the article, which seems like not good enough for an article. It is highly speculative and not verifiable and the original authors (Tarn and Narain) have been criticised in more recent scholarship for speculative inventions. ForWhomTheSunShines (talk) 01:34, 13 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello ForWhomTheSunShines, I understand the concerns and understand that Tarn and Narain may be inaccurate, but these are the texts that I have. I know that other authors say something different, so when I get those texts, I (or someone else) will revise the trees. Additionally, I give the kings several different fathers (for example, see Apollodotus I in the tree, who has 5 different possible fathers, so I am taking all possible considerations into account here). I also put dotted lines for some kings when the relationship is very unclear, making it being speculation clear. So I am making it clear these Greco-Bactrian trees, just like an Egyptian one (like the 1st Dynasty), will not necessarily be fully accurate. As for the speculation and unverifiable of the tree, well, we do have Greco-Bactrian coinage. The reason I said "This family tree (and the trees below it) is based on a combination of Tarn's and Narain's genealogies of the Greco-Bactrian kings, which are not necessarily fully correct, as with all ancient family trees." is because I want to make it very clear that is a probable layout for how the various kings are related to each other and is not supposed to be taken as dogma, just like many ancient family trees. If you want me to find different authors and replace Tarn and Narain, I will. I just wanted to use two of the most important Greco-Bactrian historians who helped establish the discipline.
OrthodoxByzantineRoman (talk) 01:51, 13 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: couldn't this be saved simply by identifying the differences between the two authors' reconstructions, either by presenting different versions of the trees, or by showing the different positions taken by each author using the varying line and border options? If other scholars disagree with their opinions, that can also be noted on or adjacent to the trees. I will suggest that the trees might need to be less horizontal and more vertical. I never stretch my browser window to the whole width of the screen, and without that the trees exceed the width of the page. But this, like noting disagreements between the authors named and other scholarship, can be achieved through ordinary editing; the page does not have to be deleted in order to improve it to Wikipedia standards. P Aculeius (talk) 13:04, 13 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you for this comment. I agree that it could be saved this way, and I will add the position of the various authors too. OrthodoxByzantineRoman (talk) 15:46, 13 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    The authors' proposals themselves are questionable and unreliable. The first citation for the first tree is clear that it is “pedigree of the Euthydemids and Eucratides to show the fictitious descent from Alexander." (emphasis added). Tarn, William Woodthorpe (1966). The Greeks in Bactria and India (2 ed.). New York, U.S.: Cambridge University Press. p. 568. ISBN 9781108009416. Retrieved 30 December 2024. The placement of a daughter of Euthydemus I marrying a Chinese emperor and bearing is son is based on speculation from an uncited paragraph. There's mashing together of speculative theory throughout the page.
    This seems to be a violation of reason for deleting #6, "[a]rticles that cannot possibly be attributed to reliable sources, including neologisms, original theories and conclusions, and hoaxes." The combination of multiple speculative, unreliable articles into one family tree is effectively the construction of an original theory or conclusion. It also violates ForWhomTheSunShines (talk) 23:40, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, but if we ignore the descent from Alexander, doesn't Tarn still state everything else, according to The Greeks in Bactria and India pgs 71ff? And I agree that the connection to Qin Shi Huangdi is spurious, I just added it on the off chance it could be correct. It was taken from Christopoulos, Lucas (September 2022). "SINO-PLATONIC PAPERS: Dionysian Rituals and the Golden Zeus of China" (PDF). Sino-Platonic Papers. Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, U.S.: University of Pennsylvania. pp. 84–86. Retrieved 4 January 2025. Also, if we clean up and or/delete this article (hopefully not because I did work hard on it), we must clean up the individual articles on the Greco-Bactrian and Indo-Greek kings too, as sources need to be cited for each king's article and other changes need to be made. However, we don't have to delete this article, as it can be cleaned up to remove it of any "speculative theory." OrthodoxByzantineRoman (talk) 03:01, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    "the off chance" is not a reason to add something to an article. And you are correct, many of the Greco-Bactrian and Indo-Greek king articles should also be cleaned up. ForWhomTheSunShines (talk) 04:10, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, I mean, it is my first article that I made. I did not know those rules. But tomorrow, I will delete Qin Shi Huangdi, as I see now that the Lucas reference in the Xiutu article was removed. OrthodoxByzantineRoman (talk) 04:33, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Move to draft. Not ready for main space. Celia Homeford (talk) 11:02, 16 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Umm....other editors allowed my article to be published back in December. Why would we put it back into draft? OrthodoxByzantineRoman (talk) 14:48, 16 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Because it's "Not ready for main space". If it's not moved, it should be deleted as a badly-formatted and ill-cited mess of original research and speculative fiction. Celia Homeford (talk) 08:08, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 01:44, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletions

[edit]

Files for deletion

[edit]

Category discussion debates

[edit]

Template discussion debates

[edit]

Redirects for deletion

[edit]

MfD discussion debates

[edit]

Other deletion discussions

[edit]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Deletion_sorting/Pakistan&oldid=1291760008"